Abortion

[Illyricum]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

[ST88]

Don't inform if not asked? Why should it be that way when it isn't for other procedures. That seems like overconfidence... to say only if I ask, inform me. It is a surgical procedure and so has risks. The abortion support site I mentioned earlier in the thread is littered with horrible experiences women have had, and it is NOT a pro-life perspective so can't be reasoned to be irrelevant. They are first hand accountings. Even if you believe that say, abortion can result in later trauma or complications in some cases, wouldn't you think women should be told about even slim risks?

What if there are mental traumas you aren't prepared for in the current pre-abortion counseling session? Why would it infringe on your rights to inform you?

I'm not saying that a person about to undergo a procedure shouldn't be informed of the risks involved. I'm saying that the risks involved should be limited to the medical evidence, and should not include such statements as "nice women don't have abortions" and "you know you're going to Hell for doing this, don't you?", both of which I have heard from female friends (hearsay, I realize) about referring nurses. Telling someone they are about to make the biggest mistake in their lives is not the same as telling them they have a chance of experiencing emotional or psychological distress because of it. I am all for telling women that they are risking persecution from the self-righteous.

Pro-choice rallies abound. So why do people wish for pro-lifers to remain silent?

Pro-choice rallies were originally intended to bring down the pro-life bureaucracy, which they did. Now that pro-life rallies wish to bring down the pro-choice bureaucracy, it only makes sense that there should be pro-choice rallies to counter them. Eliminate the pro-life rallies and I can virtually guarantee that there will be no more pro-choice rallies if only because the system is already pro-choice.

Respectfully, I think this is a statement that could be said in either direction. A group designed to reduce another group would dissolve if the other group dissolved?

My point exactly. The only thing I would add is that the current system is already oriented towards A, so if B stops protesting A, A would no longer need to counter B's protests. So you can't argue that because A is doing it, B should be allowed to also, because A is a direct result of B.

The significance is that her "choice" was historic, and heard louder than any woman's on this issue as she became the poster-girl for the movement. Her dissent is notable. Many people who are searching for answers listen to her because hers is a story from the inside. It isn't proof that abortion is wrong, but of the abortionist prophets there are but a few... it's just something to consider.

"Abortionist prophets"? Let's get back down to earth for a second. What you are essentially saying is that this anecdote should be used as evidence. I am of the opinion that Ms. Roe was in the right place at the right time, a random case that just happened to be the first to challenge the prevailing laws. Any one anecdote can be used for such purposes.

Supply and demand... The revenue of abortion is $225 to $575 for a first trimester procedure, times 1,300,000 abortions per year (Both figures from Planned Parenthood as of the year 2000). That live births generate more doesn't make the abortion industry low revenue.

You are not wrong that money is being made. My point was that, because the same doctors perform both procedures, more money could be made if these pregnancies were carried to full term. So it makes no sense to say that the moneyed interests behind such procedures would favor the choice that makes them less money.

The battle for pro-life groups is not with public opinion anymore than it is with pro-choice groups. They are split quite well, despite the institutionalized acceptance of abortion. It is with state law, AMA and others.

Here is an interesting ABCnews article on their polling with regard to the abortion question. The question is broken down by religion, with a further breakdown by Evangelical vs. other types of Christians:
"Abortions should be: (All or mostly legal) vs. (All or mostly illegal)
All adults 52% vs 43%
Evangelical white Protestants 34% vs. 63%
Catholics 55% vs. 43%
Non-evangelical white Protestants 66% vs. 33%"
(July, 2001: paraphrased for clarity in this post)

It appears from the data in the article -- and this is admittedly my own interpretation -- that most Americans would prefer to have abortion be legal, but not indiscriminately legal. (hedge: the article is about the decline of public opinion on legal abortion in the previous six month period). I think other polls show this also.

That there should be a distinction between the Pro-Life battle with state law vs. the Pro-Life battle with public opinion is rather curious. Public opinion is how the law came to be, and also how the law might be changed. In general, public opinion is reflected in law.

This debate stems back a number of years and now dozens of studies and is not simply an anti-abortion movement. My comment acknowledged dissent, which you have added to, but it doesn't stem the question. Women should be informed at the very least that there is a major debate so they can read the various sides of the issue themselves. Do you believe it is possible that there is evidence that supports the claim of an abortion-breast cancer link? What would be your position on abortion and warning, if you saw evidence to this end?

Of course it's possible. It's also possible that there's a link between eating tomatoes and getting stomach cancer. Assuming that there were verifiable studies that showed causative a link, I would not only not be in opposition to publicizing that link, I would probably be helping to publicize it. But are you suggesting that there are experts on each side and the truth is somewhere in the middle? I don't think so. Either there is a link or there isn't. So far, we have not found a link, and it's not for lack of trying. Studies that show a link have been found to be fundamentally flawed and the results are not replicable (except in the same flawed ways).

Despite my stand on this, I would not be surprised to find a link between the level of stress endured by women because of their persecution by self-righteous individuals and subsequent breast cancer.

[AV1611]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

It is murder.

[bernee51]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

It is murder.

no it's not - murder is the illegal killing of another human being.

Whether or not a foetus is a human being is moot.

Abortion, where it is a legal procedure, is not murder.

[otseng]

Whether or not a foetus is a human being is moot.

Moot? Why is that? What if it is a human being? Why would it then still be acceptable to kill a human being?

It might be acceptable legally, but it doesn't mean it's acceptable ethically. What if it's legal to discriminate against blacks? Would that also mean that it's ethical to discriminate against them?

[bernee51]

Whether or not a foetus is a human being is moot.

Moot? Why is that? ... It might be acceptable legally, but it doesn't mean it's acceptable ethically. What if it's legal to discriminate against blacks? Would that also mean that it's ethical to discriminate against them?

Moot in that whether or not a foetus is a human being has no practical significance as far as abortion being murder is concerned. Murder is an illegal activity - abortion is not (or should not be).

You using discrimination against blacks as an analogy is a straw man.

[otseng]

Whether or not a foetus is a human being is moot.

Moot? Why is that? ... It might be acceptable legally, but it doesn't mean it's acceptable ethically. What if it's legal to discriminate against blacks? Would that also mean that it's ethical to discriminate against them?

Moot in that whether or not a foetus is a human being has no practical significance as far as abortion being murder is concerned. Murder is an illegal activity - abortion is not (or should not be).

If a foetus is a human being, then killing a foetus is killing a human being. Killing an innocent human being is murder. Murder is illegal. Therefore, killing a foetus is illegal if it is a human being.

So, whether a foetus is a human being or not is the heart of the entire abortion debate.

You using discrimination against blacks as an analogy is a straw man.

The analogy is entirely appropriate because a distinction needs to be made between something that is legal and ethical.

There is no argument about the current legality of abortion. We all know abortions are currently legal. The main argument is its ethical nature. Is it right or wrong?

Because something is legal doesn't make it ethical. There was a time when discrimination against blacks was legal. But we can safely say that most people now consider it to have been unethical. That is, it was wrong to discriminate against blacks even though it was once legal.

[bernee51]

If a foetus is a human being, then killing a foetus is killing a human being. Killing an innocent human being is murder. Murder is illegal. Therefore, killing a foetus is illegal if it is a human being.

agreed - but abortion, per se, is not illegal, so it cannot be considered to be murder.

The analogy is entirely appropriate because a distinction needs to be made between something that is legal and ethical.

I disagee - discrimination against blacks is illegal, abortion is not, whether it is ethical or not is not the question.

There was a time when discrimination against blacks was legal. But we can safely say that most people now consider it to have been unethical. That is, it was wrong to discriminate against blacks even though it was once legal.

still a straw man - discrimination against an entire racial group is not the same as infringing on the rights of an individual.

FTR -
a foetus is not a human being - it is a potential human being.

I have no longer give personal support of abortion (I did in the past) - I have no right to tell an individual what they can or cannot do with their own body.

[otseng]

I disagee - discrimination against blacks is illegal, abortion is not, whether it is ethical or not is not the question.

The ethical nature of abortions is not the question? Certainly the legal nature of abortions is not the question. There is no argument from anyone about the legality of abortions. We all know that abortions are legal.

However, the challenge of whether abortions should be legal or not is based on the ethical nature of abortions.

still a straw man - discrimination against an entire racial group is not the same as infringing on the rights of an individual.

Discrimination can be against an individual or a group.

a foetus is not a human being - it is a potential human being.

A potential human being? Please clarify.

I have no longer give personal support of abortion (I did in the past) - I have no right to tell an individual what they can or cannot do with their own body.

I actually agree that an individual should not force a decision upon another human being. But, if a foetus is a human being, is not an abortion forcing the mother's/father's belief on a separate human being (and to ultimately deny it life)?

[bernee51]

The ethical nature of abortions is not the question?

no - because what is ethical for you may not be for me - and vica versa.

The law, in theory, treats all as equals.

However, the challenge of whether abortions should be legal or not is based on the ethical nature of abortions.

any challenge based purely on ethics should be dismissed

A potential human being? Please clarify.

until the foetus is viable outside the womb it only has the potential of being a human being.

But, if a foetus is a human being, is not an abortion forcing the mother's/father's belief on a separate human being (and to ultimately deny it life)?

As I do not grant your first proposition, the argument fails (AFAIAC),

Obviously 'YMMV'

[Jose]

If a foetus is a human being, then killing a foetus is killing a human being. Killing an innocent human being is murder. Murder is illegal. Therefore, killing a foetus is illegal if it is a human being.

I guess we have to define "human being." A potential human being doesn't count. Why not? Because every human egg is a potential human being. Every human sperm is a potential human being. In fact, now that we know how to fuse somatic cells with enucleated eggs and generate embryos, every cell of every human is a potential human being. The question therefore moves forward one square.

We now must define when something crosses the boundary between a potential human and an actual human being. It might be helpful to compare a human embryo and a chimpanzee embryo, and ask when they become demonstrably different. At one level, the DNA is different, but that just distinguishes potential human from potential chimpanzee. At the next level, it's clear that we can't tell them apart in the first weeks, since a morula is a morula and is the same in mice, cows, chimps, etc.

By gastrulation, we're still looking at indistinguishable embryos. They still have only the potential to develop further, and no potential for independent survival. They have no behavioral or other significant features that distinguish chimps from humans.

By neurulation, we're stuck with the same logic.

Maybe, just maybe, by the end of the first trimester, we might be able to tell 'em apart. This may be pushing it, though. Still, both are indistinguishable in their inability to survive without Mom working pretty hard to support them. They remain only potential chimp and potential human. Much can still go wrong developmentally (even as the result of genetic makeup) that can cause arrest and spontaneous abortion.

Following this line of reasoning, it looks like we come to a pretty clear distinction: an animal (including human) that can survive without absolute dependence on the placenta that it forced on its mother can be considered to have crossed beyond "potential." For humans, this point is well beyond the point at which abortions can be done safely for the mother.

what is ethical for you may not be for me - and vica versa.

An excellent point. "Ethical" is considered by many people to be defined by their religion. In a country founded on the principle of religious freedom, it is "unethical" to force the views of one religion onto the populace in general.

agreed - but abortion, per se, is not illegal, so it cannot be considered to be murder.

So it stands now... we all know that if Bush is re-elected, he will change the makeup of the Supreme Court at the next imminent retirement, specifically choosing another justice who holds his religious beliefs above the rights of those who do not share them. Eager conservatives will challenge abortion law, and take it to the Court in an effort to overturn Roe v Wade. At that point, your argument will become irrelevant--because abortion will be made illegal, and it will be defined as murder. All of those years that we fought so hard for women's rights will be lost. It will be a step backward, from the freedom our nation cherishes, toward the autocratic theocracy that we decry in others.

Y'know, I always wonder why the Pro-Life folks are against choice. They can choose not to have abortions. The vast majority of others do too, even if they are otherwise in favor of a woman's right to choose abortion if she deems it necessary. I don't think people are out there trying really hard to get pregnant with the express intent of aborting the fetus. If they believed they could help the child, once born, to the extent that they know a child needs, they wouldn't abort. It is because they believe they can't do so that they choose as they do. Forbidding abortion may well be sentencing a child to a horrible existence from which they have no escape.